3 ms·
The central complaint doesn't seem to be distaste, but rather the fact that he is uniquely privileged over other users, despite violating Bluesky's terms of ser
by mossTechnician 7mo ago
The central complaint doesn't seem to be distaste, but rather the fact that he is uniquely privileged over other users, despite violating Bluesky's terms of service.[0]
[0]: https://www.change.org/p/bluesky-must-enforce-its-community-guidelines-equally https://www.change.org/p/bluesky-must-enforce-its-community-...
- tekla 7mo agoWhy do people keep lying about this? He pulled a quote from a publically available affidavit. There was no identifying information whatsoever either.
- parl_match 7mo ago[flagged]
- Levitz 7mo agoThe central complaint isn't "distaste" because you can't call for someone to be banned because of a "distaste". "Jesse Singal has distributed private medical information on Bluesky without the consent of the patient" translates to publishing a quote from a patient included in a therapist's letter of support for hormones. The problem in this situation is that the complaint itself as well as the whole drama surrounding the person is an exercise of harassment towards Singal. In this context, I don't think that saying "waffles" is out of order. I'm not sure of what else can be done about crybullying, since by its very nature innocent bystanders would be surely affected if action was taken against those complaining.
- mossTechnician 7mo agoDistributing private medical information without consent is a violation of Bluesky's terms. And to me, that sounds like a much more concrete example of someone being a bully.
- zdragnar 7mo agoIs it private if it is in a public affidavit?
- mossTechnician 7mo agoIn my opinion, inappropriately leaked information should probably still be considered private, even if it was made publicly accessible. But even if not, Singal says the same leaker directly contacted him with a new leak, which he also published.
- naasking 7mo ago> In my opinion, inappropriately leaked information should probably be considered private. How is that relevant to BSky's terms of service? The information was public and did not identify the person. > But even if not, Singal says the same leaker directly contacted him with a new leak, which he also published. I notice that you didn't say whether this new leak was private information, or whether it was also already public knowledge, or whether it in any way identified a person.
- mossTechnician 7mo ago> I notice that you didn't say whether this new leak was private information The new leak was, according to journalist Jesse Singal himself, absolutely private information.
- naasking 7mo agoPlease cite Singal's statement and let's see what he actually said.
- mossTechnician 7mo agoI think this entire thread has run its course; if it's not this detail, it'll be another, as a few others have already moved goalposts further down the discussion than the ones you're setting here. But if you wish to sate personal curiosity, it is in his Substack, linked from the first link I posted, which was itself from the link posted by its GP.
- easterncalculus 7mo agoYeah here's the problem with this argument: 1. People want him banned for any and no reason, so this is a post-hoc justification. The same people (let's be real, likely including you) wanted Singal banned the second he made his account. 2. This change.org petition, despite proving how many uninformed people will blindly click agree on a petition, proves nothing about how Singal broke literally any rule anywhere, in law or on Bluesky.